Different warranty disclaimers?
Evan Prodromou
evan at bad.dynu.ca
Sat Mar 19 14:31:53 EST 2005
So, after doing the plain text versions of the CC licenses, I did some
diff's to make sure that I hadn't accidentally added in any errors. That
is, I wanted to make sure that the by-2.0 and by-sa-2.0 only differed by
the addition of the ShareAlike element and some section-numbering
issues.
I was surprised to see that there were various other textual
differences. Probably the most interesting was the differences in the
warranty disclaimers. Here's the warranty disclaimer in the Attribution
2.0 license:
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING,
LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED,
STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER
DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER
OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE
EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY
TO YOU.
In the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, the language is subtly different:
UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR
OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES
OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MATERIALS, EXPRESS, IMPLIED,
STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER
DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER
OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE
EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY
TO YOU.
Note: "OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY" vs. "OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY",
"CONCERNING THE WORK" vs. "CONCERNING THE MATERIALS".
The disclaimer of warranty in the Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0,
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0, and Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
2.0 are all identical to the Attribution 2.0. The
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 has another minor variation:
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING,
LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS, IMPLIED,
STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER
DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER
OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE
EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY
TO YOU.
Note "MUTUALLY AGREED BY" vs. "MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY".
Anyways, unless there's some good reason for it, these should probably
be made equal in some future version of the licenses.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou
evan at bad.dynu.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20050319/7e304bf4/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2200 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20050319/7e304bf4/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list